Obama's Defense: "You Say Guilt By Association"," or YSGBA

In previous postings I have complained, as have many others, that Senator Obama's loyalty to his pastor, the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., reflects badly on his fitness for high office. This pastor is on record asking God to "damn America." He is on record as giving high praise to the notorious Minister Farrakhan. And this pastor has reprinted in his "pastor's column," with his specific endorsement, an op-ed piece by a leader of Hamas. (For a description of the virulent, radical anti-Semitism of Hamas, see the New York Times, April 1, 2008). All this, many of us suggest, reflects on Obama, no matter how many or how few of the offending sermons he actually heard first hand.

But those who criticize Barak Obama in this manner are accused, by Obama's friends, of using "guilt by association." We are told that this criterion is illogical and abusive, if not "McCarthyite." So "You Say Guilt by Association," or YSGBA, is presented as a self-contained, self-justifying defense of Obama.

It is interesting that "guilt by association" is not a phrase that is ever used by those who presumably believe in it. Like other such polemical expressions (see, for instance, the article by Klehr and Haynes on "premature anti-Fascist"), it is used by people who accuse others of advocating ideas that they do not, in fact, either advocate or hold.

What can be said about this bugaboo, mostly used by the Left, of "guilt by association" ?

Eliot Spitzer and the Mafia

A few days ago the New York Times ran a story, very prominently on the front page of its Metro Section, entitled "Call Girl Linked to Spitzer Knew Reputed Mob Affiliate." The story was murky but went on for a few hundred words. It seems that a certain Mr. Anthony Scibelli "who the authorities contend is an associate of organized crime" had an acquaintanceship or relationship (of an undisclosed nature) with Ms. Ashley Alexandra Dupré, the professional lady with whom Spitzer is said to have consorted in Washington.

So here it is. Our ex-governor, in addition to all his other sins and problems, seems related, by no more than three or four degrees (depending how you count) to, yes, to the dreaded Mafia.

What are we to make of this story ? Let's try a thought experiment. Let's say that Spitzer, instead of being the relatively unideological figure that he in fact is, were a figure beloved by the Left. In that case we could imagine a "progressive" reaction to the Times's treatment:

This is a clear case of guilt by association ! The New York Times, for reasons best known to itself, sees fit to smear a progressive leader. True, Mr. Spitzer knows Ms. Dupré. But then it is alleged that Ms. Dupré knows a certain Mr. Scibelli (note that there is no proof that she does), and it's also alleged that Mr. Scibelli "is an associate of organized crime" (no proof of that either). But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Ms. Dupré is indeed acquainted with Mr. Scibelli, and let's assume further, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Scibelli is a Mafioso. But how does that affect Spitzer ? Mr. Spitzer has had dealings with Ms. Dupré and Ms. Dupré knows Mr. Scibelli. How can that make Mr. Spitzer a Mafioso, except by the fallacious, reactionary, malicious reasoning known as Guilt by Association. Outrageous.

Ambiguities of "Guilt"

This argument in defense of Spitzer -- "You Say Guilt by Association" (YSGBA) -- seems to have validity, at least on the surface. But it will not stand closer examination. The problem lies in what is formally known as the fallacy of equivocation, that is "the misleading use of a word [or words] with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)" (Wikipedia). Both "guilt" and "association" are deeply ambiguous.

Let us start with "guilt."

In the context of Anglo-American criminal jurisprudence, a criminal defendant cannot be found "guilty" except by "proof beyond reasonable doubt." This standard, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, helps to define the very meaning of "guilt" in this context. It is a very high standard for the prosecution, and in effect allows the defendant to benefit from all (reasonable) doubts in the case.

In going about our business in matters not related to crime, in the courts or elsewhere, we do not and cannot be guided by this very rigid, one-sided standard. In civil law cases, for instance, the ordinary standard is much lower, viz. ""balance of probabilities," sometimes termed "preponderance of evidence." (In certain cases an issue is decided by "clear and convincing evidence," which is more demanding than "balance of probabilities," but not as stringent as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt.") So it is clear that whatever "guilt" or wrongdoing may mean outside the realm of the criminal law, it is something quite different from criminal guilt.

Moreover, there is yet another standard that is particularly relevant to a discussion of the behavior of politicians and public servants. If a judge appears to have a conflict of interest, for example, he must recuse himself from the case. Justice not only needs to be done, it must also seen, or appear, to be done. An appearance of impropriety by a public official, whether or not there is a substance of impropriety, cannot be tolerated. Professor Deborah Hellman, among others, has shown that there are good reasons indeed for this rule.

It would certainly appear that Spitzer's second-hand relationship with organized crime is of legitimate interest to the public, as, indeed, is Obama's second-hand relationship with organized anti-Semitism. In either case, there is at least the appearance of something gone awry. This something, absent a criminal prosecution, need not be proven "beyond all reasonable doubt."

The YSGBA defense, then, must fall because of the ambiguity of its use of "guilt." It alleges that those who accuse Obama (or Spitzer) do not use the strict standards of criminal guilt-finding when, in fact, the accusations are not related to crime (Of course there may also be criminal aspects to the Spitzer case, but that is not the issue here.)

The other term of the YSGBA defense, "association," is similarly vague.

Ambiguities of "Association"

We may be "associated" with others in a great variety of ways. When I take a subway train to the Borough of Manhattan, I sit with many others in a subway car, associated with them for the duration of my trip. Some of these fellow-travelers may be felons, but, obviously, this does not make me a felon. The proponents of the YSBGA defense suggest that since some types of association are totally innocent in this way, all association is innocent.

We know, of course, that some association is far from innocent. The criminal law itself recognizes criminal association of various sorts. In addition to provisions dealing with aiding and abetting, there is also the law of conspiracy, which holds a conspirator in a crime to be as guilty as the actual perpetrator.

But beyond the domain of law, our ordinary experience teaches us that the company we keep helps to define who we are. A person who habitually associates with known criminals, for example, is rightfully suspect. My Jewish prayer book enjoins me to ask God every morning to "deliver me this day, and every day, from arrogant men and from arrogance, from a bad man, from a bad companion and from a bad neighbor..." [My thanks to my nephew Butchie for pointing me to this]. The Mishna (Kelim 12,12) tells us that "Who consorts with the unclean becomes himself unclean." The New Testament concurs: "Bad company corrupts good morals" (I Corinthians 15:33).

Conclusion

When we complain about Obama's associations, we do not allege that these associations make him a criminal. We are not bound by a standard of "truth beyond a reasonable doubt." Nor is all association innocent. Some is deeply troubling. We are right in scrutinizing the associations of those who would be President. And Barack Obama's associations are not reassuring.

The Prestidigitations of Barak Obama

Trinity United Church of Christ
The Senator and his Pastor

If Obama makes it to the presidency, he will have pulled off one of the most amazing juggling acts in history. For starters, he will come to the White House through the combined efforts the unspeakable Minister Louis Farrakhan on the one hand, and Jews who support Israel on the other. Farrakhan's endorsement of him presumably remains undisturbed, and many Jewish Democrats will no doubt be moved by the pro-Israel phrase in the Senator's March 18 speech (the conflict in the Middle East emanates "from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam").

But I suggest that such successful prestidigitation comes at a price. It is a price of integrity, of truth, even of common sense.

1. Condescension

The Senator's most egregious offense, which overshadows his continued embrace of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's enterprise, is the colossal condescension with which this Columbia - Harvard man patronizes the Black church: "raucous laughter ... bawdy humor .. screaming ... shouting ...," none of which, obviously, took place at Columbia or Harvard. Worst of all, the Reverend Wright is treated not as his intellectual equal, whose words would be considered seriously, but as an obstreperous but lovable child, a child who is not at all responsible for outrageous behavior, but who is, on the contrary, totally determined by a "reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up."

In Obama's telling, Wright had no choice when he became a man of hatreds and resentments. No choice ? What of the inspiring achievements of Martin Luther King ? Or of the many other great Black American leaders of the Twentieth Century ? I particularly remember, from my own youth, the leadership of A. Phillip Randolph, president of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, who helped to make the revolution that we now call the Civil Rights era. His work was one of democratic commitment, and he and his co-workers achieved results that Wright now tries so hard to undo.

2. The Glide: from Understanding to Accepting

Obama asks us to understand the roots of the Black Church and the anger and excesses of some of its ministers. That is fair enough, and this point is a genuine strength in Obama's campaign. But this insistence on understanding becomes, seamlessly, a call for acceptance and approval. Obama tells us that he cannot "disown" the Rev. Wright. Why can't he ? Because Wright had reasons (bad ones, actually) to become what he is ? That's why Obama has to stick with him and his church ? Obama's argument is attractive on the surface, but it is incoherent in its essence. A need to understand the wrong paths that others take certainly does not require us to join such people in their churches and associations.

If we can believe the journalist David Kessler, Oprah Winfield will no longer associate with Wright:

Obama’s most famous celebrity backer, Oprah Winfrey began attending Wright’s church in 1984. Last year, Newsmax magazine reported that Winfrey abruptly stopped attending years ago, and suggested that she did so to distance herself from Wright’s inflammatory rhetoric. She soon found herself a target of Wright, who excoriated her for having broken with “traditional faith.”

3. The "scholarship" of the Rev. Wright

The appearance of Wright's hateful videos began to dog the Obama campaign some days ago. Obama immediately issued a statement to Huffington Post under date of March 14. The differences between this March 14 statement and the March 18 speech are fascinating to observe.

In the earlier statement, Obama described Wright as

someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago.

Biblical scholar ? Admittedly, 'scholar' may have a variety of meanings, depending on the context. But to a Columbia-Harvard man, a former editor of the Harvard Law Review, it would seem that a "biblical scholar," at a minimum, would involve some writing and competence in the interpretation of scripture, preferably in original languages. The published bibliographies of Wright's work show no such accomplishments. It does not seem that he can reasonably, or honestly, be called a scholar of any kind, let alone a biblical scholar. Moreover, in one of the videos of Wright's sermons that have become widely available, Wright asserted that a justification of his prayer "God Damn America" is to be found in the Bible. In short, when Obama calls Wright a "scholar" he was not telling the truth.

In the March 18 speech, Obama backtracked somewhat on this claim, without explanation:

He is a man who served his country as a U. S. Marine, who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country...

The claim of "scholarship" is still made, but indirectly ("lectured at some of the finest universisties and seminaries"). Would he be able to "lecture" at Columbia or Harvard ?

As it happens, we have evidence that Obama is well acquainted with serious theological scholarship. When David Brooks interviewed him in April of last year, Obama was able to give, without preparation and on the spur of the moment, a learned and thoughtful précis of the work of the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr. So we know, when Obama pretends to believe that Wright is a "biblical scholar," that he is pandering to the ignorant.

4) What Did He Know and When Did He Know It ?

In his March 14 statement, Obama said that

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were no statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.

Given the apparently irrepressible vehemence and venom in Rev. Wright's style, many observers doubted that Obama could have been completely uninformed. In any case, his March 18 speech gives a different version:

Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church ? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views ? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

Note the glide from the earlier "statements that are the cause of this controversy" to the present "remarks that could be considered controversial." And the reference to "your pastors, priests, or rabbis" ... in other words, the Reverend Wright is no different from any other clergyman in this regard ? In that case, why mention the matter at all ? Or is this admission meant to cover a more intimate knowledge of the Reverend's hateful speech than Obama previously professed ?

And, of course, there is the matter of Trinity's award to Minister Farrakhan last year (see below). You did not have to sit in a pew to know about that one.

5) The Ministry of Trinity United Church of Christ

Senator Obama tries to create the impression that his church, Trinity United, is overwhelmingly a Christian house of worship, overwhelmingly devoted to teaching a gospel of love and good works. He suggests that its long-time pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr., made occasional slips but did not deviate, in any substantial way, from the core of this Christian message. And in any case, Obama says, the Reverend Wright is now retired, and thus no longer relevant to the ministry of the church. To this end, Obama now calls Wright the "former" pastor whenever he mentions his name.

These representations by Obama are essentially false.

First of all, it seems that most if not all of Wright's sermons are videotaped. If most of them were indeed preachings of love and good works, as Obama suggests, the Obama campaign could release such tapes to the media. But as of now, the only tapes that have emerged are those of hate and resentment.

In the footsteps of his predecessor

Secondly, the Reverend Wright's successor, the Reverend Otis Moss III, has enthusiastically endorsed his predecessor's record, without any hint of reservation on any point. So if the political stance of Wright was relevant to understanding the nature of Trinity's ministry in the past, it is still relevant, in full measure.

Not only does Obama withholds the continuity from Wright to Moss, he also suppresses, at least in his current statements, the most glaring indicator of Trinity's noxious ministry: the role of Louis Farrakhan in its self-image. Neither the March 14 press release nor the March 18 speech as much as mentions the name Farrakhan.

Minister Farrakhan in 1984

Last year, Trinity's publication Trumpet Newsmagazine bestowed its Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to Louis Farrakhan, a man, it said, who "truly epitomized greatness." (See Richard Cohen's op-ed in the Washington Post of Jan. 15, 2008) And the Reverend Wright took the occasion to lionize one of America's most notorious men of hate. Cohen reports:

Wright heaped praise on Farrakhan. According to Trumpet, he applauded his "depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation." He praised "his integrity and honesty." He called him "an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose."

And isn't it a bit curious that this Christian church needs to find a professed Muslim for its special award ?

Yet with all that, Obama states that "with Rev. Wright's retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good." (Mar. 14)

So much good ? Well, I am tempted to mention Mussolini's good work with Italian train schedules, but no, let it go. Obama, unlike his pastor, says "God bless America." I say, reluctantly, if he gets to the White House, God help America.

Addendum 3/30/08: the African-American mayor of Philadelphia, Michael Nutter, has explained why he would have left a church directed by a man like Jeremiah Wright. Here is the video.